RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off

RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/14/2007 6:30:42 PM)
Since it is pretty obvious that you did not even read the link I have brought it here for you. According to the report they are the ones who were confused about what the average temperature would be. They planned on swimming for goodness sakes because it was so "warm"! --------------------------------------------------------------- this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted. --------------------------------------------------------------- We are not talking bikini's here we are talking about exposures suits...I am sure that you remember from school what tempreture water freezes Your "average temperature" of 0 degrees is also a little suspect. Summer Arctic sea ice falls far below average for fourth year, ... than average across most of the Arctic Ocean (Figure 5: Surface temperature anomaly). ... nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages This even has pictures for you. The parts about Scott is irrelevant to the argument. Scott and party didn't envision a party jaunt in the sunny ole Arctic. They simply under-estimated the seriousness of the weather and suffered misfortune, if I remember correctly. Again if you were to read my post before you enter into your knee jerk reaction to disagree with me I pointed out that Scott and his party perished at 40 below while these women sustained themselves at 100 below. A big difference in attitude between the two circumstances as well. One was exploring, I think. The other was making a propaganda statement for political ends. And, I also suspect that the survivial of the two women had more to do with the advances in modern technology and search and rescue than with them being either better prepared, or "smarter" about the situation. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------- These two women were not exactly amatures. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/14/2007 7:38:53 PM)
Well, thompson, you are still not addressing anything I said in a manner that makes much sense to me. 1. I never said anything about bikini's and bathing suits. You are reading things into it that are not said, and are not supported. Even chilly water makes for a quick death with hypothermia. Wetsuits can help ... for an amount of time ... with proper use ... but even so, I suspect it was less than "smart" to plan on swimming large portions of the Arctic, even if the temperature was slightly above average, and to plan on doing so without a lot of backup and safety plans. None of the articles or webpages mention any such planning or safety concerns. BTW ... how did their swimming work out for them, do you think? 2. You link in refutation about the "o degrees": a. Isn't about the average air temperature b. is about "anonomalies" from average temperature, and gives no information about what the actual average or expected temperatures are. c. has a bad or unworkable link. The cache link worked, however. 3. Your comment: I pointed out that Scott and his party perished at 40 below while these women sustained themselves at 100 below. ... still has nothing to do with my response, or my point. Different situations, different reasons for being there, different levels of technology, etc. Let me be plain: I get your point, but reject it as immaterial, irrelevant, and not analogous. I wouldn't consider that "knee-jerk". I'm rarely "knee-jerk" about anything I write or say. 4. Who said anything about them being amateurs? I never said they were. Misguided. Lost in a belief system that allowed them to be mislead, and lose touch with their better senses .... yes, you could say I said those things. Although I'm not sure I'd exactly call them "professionals" either though. Professionals don't usually - usually - lose their prospective, and almost their lives due to a false understanding of their choosen field of expertise. That's what makes them professionals. Perhaps you are confused about my entire train of thought. I'm not particularly arguing about whether or not global warming "exists" or whether or not the Arctic is a slight bit warmer than usual. I am simply saying that it appears - based on the evidence contained in the articles and the cites I provided - that they had some false expectations about the impact such warming would have on their mission. And almost died because of those false expectations. FirmKY

thompsonx -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/14/2007 9:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Well, thompson, you are still not addressing anything I said in a manner that makes much sense to me. 1. I never said anything about bikini's and bathing suits. I did not say that you did... You are reading things into it that are not said, and are not supported. Even chilly water makes for a quick death with hypothermia. Wetsuits can help Not wet suits....exposures suits quite a bit of difference. ... for an amount of time ... with proper use ... but even so, I suspect it was less than "smart" to plan on swimming large portions of the Arctic, No mention was made of swimming in large portions of the arctic. You really ought to read the article before you make judgements about it. even if the temperature was slightly above average, and to plan on doing so without a lot of backup and safety plans. Their backup and safety plans seem to have worked just as planned. No loss of life and if you had read the article you would have noticed how the frost bitten toes came about. None of the articles or webpages mention any such planning or safety concerns. BTW ... how did their swimming work out for them, do you think? If you had read the article you might have noticed that they did not go swimming. 2. You link in refutation about the "o degrees": a. Isn't about the average air temperature b. is about "anonomalies" from average temperature, and gives no information about what the actual average or expected temperatures are. c. has a bad or unworkable link. The cache link worked, however. The cache link was the correct link. If you had bothered to read the text it is pretty specific as to the tempretures over the past fifty years. The last graphic on the page is pretty specific as to the tempreture. 3. Your comment: I pointed out that Scott and his party perished at 40 below while these women sustained themselves at 100 below. ... still has nothing to do with my response, or my point. Different situations, different reasons for being there, different levels of technology, etc. Really ...Scott was in a publicity race with Amundsen and he let his greed for glory exceed his talent and got himself and his men killed in his quest for glory. He like these two women were expecting tempretures in the range of -10 f to +20 f...he ran into -40 and decided to push on for the glory the women ran into -100 and decided that it would be smarter to pack it in and try it again another day. They lived and will try again Scott and his men died. Both were profesional explorers one made a foolish mistake that he and his men paid for with their lives. Let me be plain: I get your point, but reject it as immaterial, irrelevant, and not analogous. I wouldn't consider that "knee-jerk". I'm rarely "knee-jerk" about anything I write or say. ROFLMAO 4. Who said anything about them being amateurs? I never said they were. Misguided. Lost in a belief system that allowed them to be mislead, and lose touch with their better senses .... yes, you could say I said those things. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I read the article, and thought about what was going through these women's minds when they planned this expedition. My conclusion was "not much". --------------------------------------------------------------------- This sure might seem to some as calling them amateurs. Although I'm not sure I'd exactly call them "professionals" either though. Professionals don't usually - usually - lose their prospective, and almost their lives due to a false understanding of their choosen field of expertise. That's what makes them professionals. The article that you do not seem to have read does not say that at all...That seems to be the bloggers opinion which you claim as representing your own point of view. The facts are that two professional explorers when faced with an extreme situation managed to extricate themselves with no loss of life and nothing more serious than three frost bitten toes. That to most rational people without an agenda would seem to be the hallmark of professionalism. Perhaps you are confused about my entire train of thought. I'm not particularly arguing about whether or not global warming "exists" or whether or not the Arctic is a slight bit warmer than usual. I am simply saying that it appears - based on the evidence contained in the articles and the cites I provided - that they had some false expectations about the impact such warming would have on their mission. I am not confused about anything. I am not discussing global warming I am refuting your opinion that these women did not know what they were doing. You clearly have not read the article and the cite you post is nothing more than some moron making fun of these two women. Which you have agreed with. And almost died because of those false expectations. They did not almost die of anything least of all false expectations. They,unlike your blogger, were quite aware of the difference between climate and weather and went prepared for the worst and survived with nothing more than three frost bitten toes because of it. Had they not been prepared for the circumstances that they encountered they surely would have died. Had they been the glory seeking publicity that Scott was they surely would have perished as he did. thompson FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/14/2007 9:50:37 PM)
shrugs ok, thompson. FirmKY

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/22/2007 10:46:44 AM)
Hey, now even Australian scientists are getting into the act: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070322/sc_nm/climate_ocean_dc What possesses all these scientists to keep lying to us? Don't they realize that we're never going to believe their seditious nonsense anyway?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/22/2007 11:30:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Hey, now even Australian scientists are getting into the act: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070322/sc_nm/climate_ocean_dc What possesses all these scientists to keep lying to us? Don't they realize that we're never going to believe their seditious nonsense anyway? From your source: For the so-called Atlantic Conveyor, the surface warm water current meets the Greenland ice sheet then cools and sinks, heading south again and driving the conveyor belt process. But researchers fear increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet risks disrupting the conveyor. If it stops, temperatures in northern Europe would plunge. From current research. The Greenland Ice: previous papers have recently noted an increase in snow accumulation in the interior (i.e. Johannessen et al., 2005) Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. And, about those glaciers disappearing into the ocean: Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers Using satellite-derived surface elevation and velocity data, we find major short-term variations in recent ice discharge and mass-loss at two of Greenland's largest outlet glaciers. Their combined rate of mass-loss doubled in less than a year in 2004 and then decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates, likely due to fast re-equilibration of calving front geometry following retreat. A good summary article: Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather, NYT, February 8, 2007 Greenland isn’t melting as fast as we feared. It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland’s ice — and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, “average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.” FirmKY

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/26/2007 7:28:38 PM)
Oh, thanks for the information. I knew those scientists had to be lying.

Real0ne -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/26/2007 9:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Hey, now even Australian scientists are getting into the act: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070322/sc_nm/climate_ocean_dc What possesses all these scientists to keep lying to us? Don't they realize that we're never going to believe their seditious nonsense anyway? FUNDING :)

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/26/2007 11:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Oh, thanks for the information. I knew those scientists had to be lying. Translated. Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is made up. FirmKY

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/27/2007 7:33:15 AM)
Yes, under your tutelage, I've learned that I may as well cancel my subscription to Scientific American. http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=333F2116-2B35-221B-6B80944A8A3FD09F You'll have to pay to read this if you're not a subscriber, but hell, it's all lies anyway, right? Save your $5. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is made up.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/27/2007 9:13:20 AM)
LaM, Without snarkiness, what you see in the discussion about the Greenland ice sheet is that for a few years, it had a rapid movement and calving. Now, that has stopped, and the ice is actually getting thicker. The conclusion is that glaciers move a lot faster at times then previously thought, based on several factors. The ice had reached a point that it was unstable, and moved and calved faster than had been seen before, but once it did, it returned to an earlier equilibrum. Making conclusions either way is dangerous, for the simple fact that we are just beginning to understand much of anything about how they behave. My links were to current - the latest, actually - scientific data about this fact. It doesn't invalidate earlier data, but it does change the conclusion that the Greenland ice sheets are "melting away". You didn't even bother to look at the links, I'd bet. One is to a layman's report in the New York Times. Another is to the actual article published in Science Magazine. What I have said before that I really take exception to is "true believers" refusing to consider that perhaps they have less than "perfect understanding". It's heresy to even look at data that doesn't support your conclusions. You claim to have made a deep study in the entire issue of "global warming", but you display all the signs of conclusions first, then find supporting data. Even the snarky way you provide the link above, with your air-of-superiority about paying for a subscription means to belittle and demean, as happens when a "true belief" is challenged. Since I don't have a digital subscription, I can't read the article. And that proves your point about the Greenland glaciers how, exactly? If you were really interested in the facts, and not the belief, then that's not what you would do. However, I did read the precis of the article. All it says is the IPCC has released their latest summary report in February. I've read and studied the summary report for policy makers. It gives conclusions, but not detailed backup data, so you can't evaluate the credibility of anything from it, although there are some things that bother me already. I am in the process of reviewing all of their earlier reports as well, but have not reached a conclusion, but I am a skeptic for the simple fact of how people like you are so dismissive, and seem to have an agenda. The Greenland glacier data that I gave you links to was not published before the IPC summary report. It will likely not be included in their detailed technical data. But it is true, nonetheless. If, after you reach a conclusion, data comes to light that affect that conclusion, a neutral person interested in truth would at the least be willing to reassess their conclusions. Not necessarily refute them, but at least consider the possibility that they didn't have sufficient accurate understanding of all of the factors at play. Is that the attitude you are displaying? FirmKY

Real0ne -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/27/2007 10:54:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Yes, under your tutelage, I've learned that I may as well cancel my subscription to Scientific American. http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=333F2116-2B35-221B-6B80944A8A3FD09F You'll have to pay to read this if you're not a subscriber, but hell, it's all lies anyway, right? Save your $5. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is made up. i will pay to read it if and only if it makes the comparison: how much is natural as a result of the solar cycle versus how much is man made. Just telling me damn its hot out here and its all our fault aint going to cut it. If they cannot answer that then this is nothing more than a dancing exercize. Do they answer that question or not?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/27/2007 7:03:24 PM)
Yes, that's exactly one of the points. It's a factor of more than 10:1, manmade vs. solar effects. But seriously, don't pay the $5. Just buy the issue if you're really that interested. It's the current issue. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne i will pay to read it if and only if it makes the comparison: how much is natural as a result of the solar cycle versus how much is man made. Just telling me damn its hot out here and its all our fault aint going to cut it. If they cannot answer that then this is nothing more than a dancing exercize. Do they answer that question or not?

Real0ne -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/28/2007 4:52:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Yes, that's exactly one of the points. It's a factor of more than 10:1, manmade vs. solar effects. But seriously, don't pay the $5. Just buy the issue if you're really that interested. It's the current issue. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne i will pay to read it if and only if it makes the comparison: how much is natural as a result of the solar cycle versus how much is man made. Just telling me damn its hot out here and its all our fault aint going to cut it. If they cannot answer that then this is nothing more than a dancing exercize. Do they answer that question or not? kool! So who actually conducted the tests? It shoudl be easy to find out here with a name and no need to go through sa at all.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/28/2007 8:26:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Yes, that's exactly one of the points. It's a factor of more than 10:1, manmade vs. solar effects. What was their logic and evidence that human activity had a ten-fold more important effect on the world's slight temperature rise, compared to the change in solar radiation patterns? Did they give a level of confidence and likelihood scale for the truth of that conclusion? FirmKY

Lordandmaster -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/28/2007 8:37:55 PM)
You're free to go read the article yourself, Firmhand. It's in the latest issue of Scientific American. I trust you know where to buy Scientific American if the mood ever strikes you to read non-partisan science journalism.

Real0ne -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/28/2007 10:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne kool! So who actually conducted the tests? It shoudl be easy to find out here with a name and no need to go through sa at all. you skipped my question. i would like to see the actual not not someones opinion and that should be published on the net. i know how to get a copy of sa too but all i need to know is who conducted the tests you are talking about in sa?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/28/2007 10:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster You're free to go read the article yourself, Firmhand. It's in the latest issue of Scientific American. I trust you know where to buy Scientific American if the mood ever strikes you to read non-partisan science journalism. Avoiding the question is not answering the question.

Sinergy -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/29/2007 8:25:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster You're free to go read the article yourself, Firmhand. It's in the latest issue of Scientific American. I trust you know where to buy Scientific American if the mood ever strikes you to read non-partisan science journalism. That was a great article, Lordandmaster. Most fascinating to me was the carbon isotope comparisons between air samples thousands of years ago and today proving the source for the carbon. I suspect, however, that most of the global warming naysayers wont bother to read the article, or will assume that the scientists are checking carbon isotopes to increase their funding, as opposed to trying to answer the question as to whether it is a natural process versus manmade. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Ironic - Global Warming Expedition Called Off (3/29/2007 2:34:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster You're free to go read the article yourself, Firmhand. It's in the latest issue of Scientific American. I trust you know where to buy Scientific American if the mood ever strikes you to read non-partisan science journalism. That was a great article, Lordandmaster. Most fascinating to me was the carbon isotope comparisons between air samples thousands of years ago and today proving the source for the carbon. I suspect, however, that most of the global warming naysayers wont bother to read the article, or will assume that the scientists are checking carbon isotopes to increase their funding, as opposed to trying to answer the question as to whether it is a natural process versus manmade. Sinergy i wont deny we are putting tons into the cycle every day. BUT all i want to know is WHO did the test? If i have to i will get the mag but i want to see the actual test results not their rendition of it, and i already have seen tests that were conducted using carbon isotope testing when posting to julia's thread. None in itself which aswers my question. Does it provide the data to make the comparison either directly or by interpolation?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625